From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDBACA0540; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:01:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9137D1BED6; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:01:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CD91BEA8 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:01:33 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1594800092; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AfrIWpTpVy+yYQfYAK5HFK7jTjDEKdiGBHug1z5+Y/c=; b=D76iRHCpC55njLZoTRIolFwuS3tnoNc0p7gNcBDzeSdWAZX5kb0i77+3qBZoz1KzBU0mFv 4JCkq5iZCElh73sMqA2KQRcxO953Or6GV/5kQPHZaBFIKAHsL5CN0FOwZLg3muF8GA3rFf 6js++EXWrr6yLCK3TcHhZnn9ghIarX4= Received: from mail-ua1-f71.google.com (mail-ua1-f71.google.com [209.85.222.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-268-UzgN1AnGOzqYlavXBpgZhA-1; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 04:01:31 -0400 X-MC-Unique: UzgN1AnGOzqYlavXBpgZhA-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f71.google.com with SMTP id b25so354129uaj.2 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 01:01:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AfrIWpTpVy+yYQfYAK5HFK7jTjDEKdiGBHug1z5+Y/c=; b=dJwKRqMfjYYsHORyFf1TTJ1nuoo/59RiGPTDMcoGAMAJHLNlkCmCqNOzz/OlxsIlGp 4Twku0i+I1U5MDtNkxSddo547mMKoXUXH1favaWcGJZYy6U7SOWLA2MJrmttrVniHpTr EhcXJtbehMv0ApN6QK4hK011pK2s96OopFbxuxyxxCWxwd93Q+7W0zSrkNhKnkbN0rSl lPSoOnMyNeLJXFO77Otv4pQ96ulq/8u92LkgraB7CvLsO3LuDuh1h/xAhefC3q0uqtbJ ZfQDunFm2VBA/CbPotDKF1L9ls3I3oC4oPTLQ/XQkzQGxzBAC3DtvJByyk2gc6NWj6Pu vc0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531MaeASm717nxeBqpT4QTX2JKdXfSU/6GiurogQCpF9ybsJJ5Fg ky1zgItdp4b8GmuqiCDKdE/9Zl4oxt+3Ba8af2IJ9Em7uT9DZqeL/8s0j0Q1ErVYlJgR/+PxTgJ mcAEwUMZrbINnAfC3NGg= X-Received: by 2002:a67:b741:: with SMTP id l1mr6216993vsh.180.1594800090747; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 01:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6rvdLK1Pjetq/86oYcmbld3fEQC8MnW0f6vZ4uQx2H1wOU+RthLLxrAEMVBqFnOQzRh5x4AGjveOHg4c7BQc= X-Received: by 2002:a67:b741:: with SMTP id l1mr6216962vsh.180.1594800090418; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 01:01:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200710115324.3902559-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <3151e427-77af-80c0-e53b-4e107bb1a40c@intel.com> <2414408.smBOq31esu@thomas> In-Reply-To: <2414408.smBOq31esu@thomas> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:01:19 +0200 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , dev , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Gaetan Rivet , "Zhang, AlvinX" , Beilei Xing , Jeff Guo , Bruce Richardson , Dmitry Kozlyuk , navasile@linux.microsoft.com, "Dmitry Malloy (MESHCHANINOV)" , Pallavi Kadam , Tal Shnaiderman X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: keep API compatibility with mmap values X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:17 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > The problem is that we have an API which is taking mmap flags as input. > "int additional_flags" is a parameter of the function, > and are supposed to be mmap flags. But it is not stated clearly. > When Windows will use this function, it won't use mmap flags > but RTE_MAP_*. So we must accept both. > That's why the best is to make values the same. > > In 20.11, we could change the API, > make clear that only RTE_MAP_* is accepted, > and remove this workaround. > Or even better, remove pci_map_resource from the PCI lib, > and implement it in the PCI bus driver. My preference goes to simple removal. Maybe it can be handled/rediscussed when the windows porting touches pci resources mappings. Removal needs to be announced, so something to plan right now. -- David Marchand